Carotta: 'Everything of the Story of Jesus can be Found in the Biography of Caesar.'

The Italian-German linguist and philosopher Francesco Carotta proves in his book Jesus was Caesar that the story of Jesus Christ has its origin in Roman sources. After more than fifteen years of investigation Carotta has found the traces which lead to the Julian origin of Christianity. He concludes that the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar.

Carotta: ''The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil war, a 'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar-from the Rubicon to his assassination-mutated into the narrative of Jesus, from the Jordan to his crucifixion. Jesus is a true historical figure, he lived as Gaius Julius Caesar, and ressurected as Divus Julius.''

The cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even to this day there has been no historical proof of his existence. Julius Caesar, 'son of Venus' and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.

Carotta's new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that coincidence can be ruled out.

Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states in the north: Gallia and Galilee.

Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, and their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter and Andrew on the other.

Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion.

Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship with one particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.

Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus with Nicodemus of Bethany.

Both have an affinity to ordinary people-and both run afoul of the highest authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.

Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as well: the clementia Caesaris and Jesus' Love-thy-enemy.

Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first gets away: the other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it: Lepidus and Pilate.

Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of the Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on their heads: a laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.

Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified, but with a stab wound in his side.

Jesus as well as Caesar hang on a cross. For a reconstruction of the crucifixion of Caesar, see here.

Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides (15 th) of March, Jesus on the 15 th of Nisan.

Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.

Caesar and Jesus also use the same words, e.g.: Caesar's famous Latin 'Veni, vidi, vici' - I came, I saw, I conquered - is in the Gospel transmitted into: 'I came, washed and saw', whereby Greek enipsa, 'I washed', replaces enikisa, 'I conquered'.

Prominent European scholars and intellectuals are jubilant:

'This report is of the same order of importance as the scientific discoveries of Darwin and Galileo.'

¬ Paul Cliteur, Ph. D., University of Leiden, The Netherlands

'Reading Francesco Carotta's book has fascinated me, ...leading the mind of the reader step by step to the solution of an obscure intrigue. This voyage was like a liberating and exhilarating breath of fresh air.'

Reader Comments

Personally, I never got into the whole religion thing, but the data does seem to implicate that once again our modern Amor begins and ends in Roma. So, no Jesinavarah or is that 'open'? No mothership to drop off or pick up? Which doesn't quite seem the 'natural way' of STO anyway, but was that channel corruption as well? Or.. is there more to this story other than the usual light vs dark game going on?

In our bizarro world today, we recognize that our history is merely propaganda written for the 'victors', that the rise of the Church seems a factor of the increased chaos of the times as new energies required new forms of expression that even Caesar was an archetypal expression for, which seems much like today, and so the thrust of this 'discovery' seems to be that we are living in a lie, a matrix or maze or purgatorial prison of the mind and body that suffocates the soul. Is that it? As one that never really gave much gravity to the whole religious thing, this seems rather unimportant, so I wonder if this will work as a 'wake-up call' for Christians if they never hear it? Or is it part of the 'cleaning of the channel/machine' for those already on the path? To eliminate the 'ties that bind'?

Is it just the latest 'nail in the coffin' that is our 3d world of man-made beliefs? Or is it just another example of the rise and fall of the empire-builders, with those really representing the people in the extreme minority of those in power as usual? Was this combo of the monotheistic religions in the region at the time merely serving the needs of state in its everpresent desire to maintain control, damn the truth, or the next stage of the spiral as it turns towards home? Because in the meantime, the 'game' goes on.

On a side note, this whole Julius/Jesus issue of the ancient Roman hearth religion and its development into the have/have-nots issue can perhaps be glimpsed as is still expressed in Japan's cultural traditions.

It is still very likely there are two persons mixed together in order to create a well functioning myth. The narrative from Bible's Gospels might be likely based on Caesar's life and given the spin of what was going on in Galilee.

Burton Mack's books give a good reason to think there was a lot going on in the Middle East and this could be the Jesus Mystic part. To this we can add Jesus/Julius Reformator in Rome and the things get so moving within the society of the whole Mediterranean that the contemporary churches have no other choice but create the new myth to settle everything down under their control.

Maybe the information from C's in the particular session was corrupted, maybe not.
[Link]Laura is the only one who can verify that part, but I think some important historical person/being from Middle East must have influenced the Myth otherwise the writing of Gospels would not happen in that area.

Ultimately, my knowledge is nowhere near to be able speculate on the topic. I'm looking forward to read the book of F.Carotta and even more the next volume of the Secret History.

The historical Jesus turns up many times in ancient literature. He travelled widely in the East and absorbed the teachnigs of Bhuddism and Hinduism for example and adopted gnosticism (knowing). His teachings were corrupted by the Church of Rome which formed a faith based salvationist religion i.e. an agnostic religion in which adherents were taught to believe anything the priests of the powers that be told them - and not to think. The Church of Rome and all churches decended from it are therefore anti-christian, a psychopathic power play.

To me the most telling words of Christ can be found in the Notavich Codex: "Ignore the priests form your own relationship with God". This has both a secular and divine interpretation: even the bible tells us that God is Spirit (which is Mind). Forming your own relationship with God means forming your own relationship with Mind. In a secular sense this simply means form a relationship with your own mind i.e. Think for yourself! In the divine sense you must form a relationship with the divine Mind. But how do you do that? The first part of forming a relationship with any other mind is first of all to perceive the other mind just like you cannot have a relationship with another person until you perceive them - obviously. In fact Christ told us that in order to perceive God we needed a particular characteristic:

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".

So that stuffs me then.

Interestingly in modern parlance the meanings of gnostic and agnostic have been confused somewhat..

So could the false Christ of the Church be a tyrant called Ceasar? Well I am sure it is possible even if the coincidences are just an embellishment to a more or less true story (read the Codex above which is the original gospel written in AD 42). Either way do not confuse the false Christ of the Church of Rome with the true Christ who's message they work against.

Like gdpetti above, and, I'm confident, a disproportionately high number of other SOTTites, I have no particular religious identification or upbringing. (We went to the Church of the Atlantic, surfing, whilst friends suffered through Sunday school.)

Dave McGowan and his "CIA" {Center for an Informed America at [Link]} - yes, he of the excellent photographic analyses and commentary - of hundreds of stills from the Boston Bombing, (at the above link), and also re Laurel Canyon's Intel & Rock & Roll Origin Connections/"coincidences', (id.), etc., etc., is once again 'ahead of the curve' here.

In his February 13, 2012 article, "Random Thoughts at the Dawn of the Year 2012", at [Link]he concluded that JC was most likely not JC but instead some powerful Roman. Hmm.

With typical sardonic wit, he begins:

"I thought I’d begin this rant by sharing some of my thoughts on the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth. I think we can all agree that, unlike some of the other subjects I have weighed in on in the past, this is one on which people do not tend to have strongly held points-of-view, so there is little chance that I will offend and alienate readers right off the bat.

So let’s jump right into it then with observation #1: When the likely outcome of an unwed pregnancy is death by stoning, people can be really creative liars."

Francesco Carotta first published about JC being Julius Caesar in 1988.

Mae Brussell was connecting the dots of the Sixties counter-culture in 1976 (and pointing at the real culprits who subverted the movement(s)). [Link]
As for the Boston Bombings, let's just say that McGowan isn't just ahead of the curve, he's on a completely different one.

This is really for niall, but he doesn't have a "reply" button, so you're it.

Niall, i've looked over Dave's Boston Bombing stuff, and a lot of it is very persuasive. You or someone here at SOTT did a pretty solid number on the first article he wrote, and it seemed like he did a good job of rebutting that. I have not seen any further material here - not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've not seen it - while he has gone on with quite a lot of follow-up. Would you care to address that further?

@ R.C. ... i thought i was the only one :) my folks took us kiddies to walk around the lake, stopping at the swamps to see stuff hop around whilst all others suffered through sunday school. i believe you to be right about the unwed pregnancy line as well.

@ carefix ... i very much enjoyed reading your entire take! Back to the Indian`s Story of the Two Wolves i`d add. i`d also add, carefix, i don`t think that you are stuffed, then :)

@ gdpetti ... Or is it part of the 'cleaning of the channel/machine' for those already on the path? To eliminate the 'ties that bind'?
i sure hope that is the truth.

Francesco Carotta's book "Jesus was Caesar" was originally printed in *1999* under the title "War Jesus Caesar?" ("Was Jesus Caesar?"). This is OLD NEWS, folks.

This article states, "The cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even to this day there has been no historical proof of his existence."

In the Tol’doth Yeshu, the Jewish history of Christ, it is taught that Jesus is of “illegitimitate origin, through the union of his mother with a soldier name Pandera” (or Panthera). Thus, Jesus is referred to as “ben Pandera” (son of Pandera). Pandera / Panthera is a travesty on the Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” calling Jesus a “son of a virgin.” Joseph Klausner (1874-1958), a Jewish historian and professor of Hebrew Literature, stated that the illegitimate birth of Jesus was a current idea among the Jews.

Concerning when Christianity actually began, I recommend “The Jesus Papyrus” by Carsten Peter Thiede & Matthew D’Ancona. It discusses papyrus fragments containing portions of the gospel of Matthew in Greek, which have been dated to the first century.

You need to read Carotta's book. He shows that such references were the result of copy/translation errors and/or some combination of that with deliberately conflating Caesar's life and death (especially his funeral) with contemporary religious/cultural beliefs.

You might also want to read Michael Parenti's book on Caesar. The history that has come down to us was written by historians who were themselves either members of the elite or were genuflecting authoritarian follower types - they were the Leo Strausses and Bernard Lewises of their time.

I've read that rebuttal, and wouldn't exactly call it 'excellent'. I'd call it the fevered obtuse rantings and nitpickings of a guy with a serious agenda to make sure that Jebus remains our lord and savior.

Niall, just as Dr Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes the 'all-revealing' silence of the media to the hundreds of press releases they receive each day is just that: silence because it's not newsworthy.

As for your asking our acquaintances how many of them equate Jesus with Julius Caesar let's follow that question with how many equate King James II with a UFO alien. Either makes about as much sense.

John 15 (Christ talking about how the Herodian Jews and the Romans hated him and his father)
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Matthew 22 (Christ talking about Caesar, not himself)
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

It seems that gospel authors are reffering to public title (caesar) not personal name (Iulius Caesar). If you check possibly the oldest source Codex Sinaiticus (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org) from middle of the 4th century there is indeed word kaisar for caesar, roman emperor but "in the Gospels it always refers to Tiberias" (http://biblehub.com/greek/2541.htm) possbily based on Lk 3:1.

Also, don't forget, indirectly, this discovery is giving the muslims the upper hand in the war between the 2 religions....

There are a lot of questions to be answered..

Additionally, all credible channeled material attest to the existence of some christ figure, though they don't say it is a person per say, rather a conglomerate of different people who incarnate at different times to do different things..

I mean, THIS is soooo confusing.

Also what do the Cs mean Christ will come back again and spread the word via the media just soon after the big tally-ho to the new estate? Is JC going to make an appearance as a media pundit?

Lots of questions, lots of believes to knock over...

Lastly, the Cs transcripts have to be cleaned up... what is true, what isn't? How do you know? What about those things that can't be verified?

Not really. Jesus is revered in Islamic literature. He is one of the 5 main messengers (Noah, Moses, Joseph, Jesus and Mohammed).

The Islamic version of Jesus (or Issa as he is called in Arabic) is very similar to the one in the Bible in many aspects including Virgin Mary being his mother, his ability to heal people and resurrect the dead, and that he traveled all over the word. The main differences are that he is not the Son of God and that he was not actually crucified. The story goes that he hid in a garden when the Roman soldiers came after him. The Roman soldiers eventually captured a double instead and crucify him. After 3 days had elapsed, Jesus came out of his hiding.... few people might have seen him and thought he was resurrected.

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate.
There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger. Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth his service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him. Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso dis-believeth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!
Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah

And, as if that weren't bad enough...as if we are the terrorists (yeah, right...more like the wishful thinking driven projection statements and programs of the true terrorists in the pathocracy being thrust upon us)...dontcha know, haven't you heard? We are the mindless masses that need our numbers culled and our amnesiac and hypnosis-induced heads filled with lies embedded within, wrapped around, and woven
throughout state-crafted, religious concoctions...

Edict of Milan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

First Council of Nicaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Constantine I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Eusebius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

Constantinian Shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

...and pathocracy reinforcing, pseudo-scientific, psy-ops programs under the cover of environmentalism, as spouted off by their authoritarian following "green" groups, programs, and "experts."

As Paul Cliteur of the University of Leiden stated: 'This report is of the same order of importance as the scientific discoveries of Darwin and Galileo.'

I would say it is even MORE important than Darwin and Galileo because the misuse of Christianity has been the bane of Western civilization for almost two millennia.

The efforts of the scholars to prove the existence of a historical character behind Christianity, a Jewish Jesus, has proven again and again to be a complete and utter failure. How can an empty grave have any meaning when the one who was supposedly put there never existed to begin with?

But now, thanks to Carotta, there IS a historical figure who is actually more commanding and praiseworthy than the pale, insipid Gallilean failure long held up to us as a role model that anyone in their right mind would NEVER follow.

Now we can distance ourselves from the schismatic disputes that have poisoned our civilization and history, that continue to poison our societies and divide people against each other; now we can KNOW the founder, who he was, what he taught, what he actually did, and even read his own words.

Jesus was, indeed, Caesar: a Roman, not a Jew. Carotta's evidence is compelling and convincing.

Please, do yourself a favor, get and read this book. Don't pay any mind to the naysayers, the "true believers" in the artificially created religion who deny the truth that could set them free. Not only is it liberating to be free of the lies that have been used to terrify humanity for almost two thousand years, it is liberating to know that such a man as Julius Caesar existed: a man who can stand today as a role model for the people, the poor, the downtrodden, and that despite the hatred of the wealthy elite such as Cicero and Cato, his acts were so magnificent and well-known that even they could not cover them up.

Along with this book, you will want to read also Gary Courtney'sEt tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus!, Michael Parenti's The Assassination Of Julius Caesar: A People's History Of Ancient Rome (New Press People's History), and Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus: Flavian Signature Edition. Only then, will you have the complete picture of the solution of the greatest mystery of Western Civilization.

It's a tremendous feeling to finally know the truth that sets one free!

I can't wait until Laura puts all the different sources and pieces of the Jesus/Julius puzzle together, which I think will be the closest approximation to reality that this world has seen since the actual events and persons that the myths were formed around. Bring it on Laura!

"According to the Cassiopaeans, this is a fundamental property of the service to self orientation. The core idea of wishful thinking is that one prefers one's personal subjective preference over knowledge of the objective state of matters. This is a statement to the universe to the effect that the being does not wish to exist in said universe because the being's fantasies are preferred. This then ties with the idea of the thought center of non-being and separation of self from all which is.

In the third density wishful thinking does not physically bend reality, it only hampers perception. In the fourth density wishful thinking, so the Cassiopaeans suggest, has the effect of quite concretely forming a sort of reality bubble. In densities beyond the fourth, pure service to self cannot exist as active beings presumably because the increased freedom of these densities would make it so the entity simply collapsed on itself and ceased interacting, living fully in a solipsistic bubble or collapsing"
Also From the May 28th 2013 session: Too bad the question was not asked then.
Q: (Perceval) They're proverbial now. We've talked about them that much. (Belibaste) Do you want to ask about Jesus? (L) No, I'm too tired. I'd have to go into detail, and I'm too tired for that.

To me it appears this line of thinking is incongruent with much of what the C's have indicated. If the question is asked now the answer may be tainted. Not that the umpire is the C's but who is Francesco Carotta? Who is behind him? Not just him but this meme that has appeared. Very suspect.

Ned, You always have such inspirational questions and comments. Its soothing to watch others walk the talk, to know the difference; accept frustration as a tool that keeps you vigilant, but nothing else, it is very relaxing.

The difference is between information and knowledge. Information is H2O = water. Knowledge is knowing how to make it rain.
He who knows doesn`t talk, he who talks doesn`t know.

Using multiple SoTT accounts to throw out to others subjective observations [Link]and prescriptions hardly amounts to 'walking the talk.'

If you're not a paid shill, then, at the very least, it's very evident you're an unbalanced individual in need of assistance, a prerequisite to building the capability of authentically assisting others.

Always check your libraries first, local and university if near one, as they have an even more expansive share network, usually. Otherwise, [Link]is available online selling used versions, if you can't afford new or not sure if it's worth the price, if they have a copy in their network of book sellers.

IMO, Carlotta's work is very precise and essentially seems to prove the point of the JC's being the same person of interest, the passion-play especially, only I doubt if the translations were accidentally skewed or badly copied without intent, rulers and those working on their behalf aren't known for a lack of intent in their desire for control of the masses, and given the apparent chaos of the times in question, and the known control of the Roman emperor on this process on through the Holy Roman emperor then the Popes in Rome, my guess is simple cause and effect based in the typical 'Machiavellian' desire to maintain control. Changing times call for a change in religion/drug, the state, et al and Caesar himself is a good example, a product of his times, who learned from those that came before him. Being a statesman first and a military man second, he seems to have well learned the basic lessons of never fight in your own territory if you can avoid it, and always nip problems in the bud if given the chance, as you never know when your opponent may get stronger and yourself weaker, something forgotten in the West in the '30s regarding Hitler.

The epilepsy disease was always rather ridiculous wasn't it? Can you imagine having an epileptic fit during battle? No control drugs at that time were there? Funny isn't it? And this level of injected dark humor by historians seems to easily point to the fact that they work for the 'victors' and not the vanquished, ie, the people, the sheeple would be more accurate. At times, these historians seem to be writing for Mel Brooks "History of the World: the ReWrite", and if they screwed up, they could always rewrite it later, or just burn it all down as is often popular once the masses are riled up to do so.

IMO, Carlotta's work was a slam dunk, but then I didn't/don't have any attachment to the issue, and as for the 'misuse of Christianity being the bane of Western Civilization'? If not Christianity, then it would just be something else, different name but same game. Those writing the script are just filling in the blanks after all, it's not like they are putting too much effort into these lies, they always take the easy way out, if they didn't, Carlotta wouldn't have been able to 'pick it to pieces' so easily, as is represented today in the fact that hypocrisy rules and the hypocrites don't seem to care anymore, a definite sign-of-the-times to be sure. Back in the day, such talk would be blasphemy and one would be burned at the stake or enjoy other favorite torture pastimes by the local PTB. Gitmo anyone?

This discussion seems like one of G's provocation sessions to bring out the button issues in those still invested in the system's script. It's graduation time, so give those buttons away, or is that just a British tradition? It seems to me that you can go around the world and find the same 'ponerization' of history at a level commensurate with the level of power by the state/region in question, so thereby the JC issue seems more important that perhaps it really is. It seems just another example of the same STS vs STO 'game' that never changes. It is perhaps a better example that most of how the process on control, propaganda, mythicization of history etc is done by the PTB, for the PTB, and in that role serves an important function in pushing people's buttons.

"it is liberating to know that such a man as Julius Caesar existed a man who can stand today as a role model for the people, the poor, the downtrodden, and that despite the hatred of the wealthy elite such as Cicero and Cato, his acts were so magnificent and well-known that even they could not cover them up."

A million Gauls say NON!!!!

That's the kind of "needs must" statistic that would make even Pol Pot blush.

Or you sure about that? If you take a look at the history of the peoples throughout the 'Western' world at this time, if not the world and at all times, you find the same desire to be the HERO! Usually, this is expressed as the conquering hero of his people/tribe, and it seems just like Alexander the Great became the HERO of the times and the archetype to follow for all wannabes, so Caesar became a later mask of the same type, someone to emulate. Think of Spartacus and the slave revolt at that time. They started to beat Roman butt and instead of 'going home', they wanted to stay and fight it out, perhaps with ideas of taking Rome itself! Ah, the glory of it all, no? So, it seems to have been for the Gauls. Why shouldn't they too desire to be 'King of the World!' ? Caesar's successes would no doubt serve as a catalyst for even more wannabes to prove themselves in the manly theatre of war.

Has this changed much over the years? Isn't our 'history' just a collection of war stories from the victors point of view? The Gauls just weren't ready for the match at the time. They didn't seem to really know what they were up against, which was a 'tribe' even larger and more experienced than themselves, the Germans etc., and that to conquer them would mean to do more than win a battle or two, as the Romans were known to play the game pretty much like the Gauls, Germans et al did at the time; they would abandon Rome if need be and take the 'guerilla warfare' path or whatever path would let them win the war, any war, every war, until they were too worn out to fight anymore.

I would say the Gauls of the time would be envious of Caesar's success and seek to follow in his footsteps in conquering the known world, and isn't that what most of them wanted to do? It was the cultural norm of that time. Israel is a smaller example of the same, so is the USof A, or any empire, which needs an 'enemy' to keep people's focus off the local world of daily life and on the glory of war, in which any retard, criminal or psychopath can become a hero, at least for a day if not more.

Pol Pot is a different story of a real predatorial psychopath who, I guess, wouldn't need to blush. They don't call it the Killing Fields for nothing. Only idiots, mindless mush or psychopathic types destroy their own state, neighborhood, tribes. That's a definite sign of someone deeply 'disturbed', best keep your distance. The 'statistics' bear that out extremely well.

So I personally accept the Jesus myth was built around him based on the work of Carotta. To me, as gdpetti said, it is a slam dunk.

Anyways,

- JC was still an agent of Rome. Do we know his thoughts on the imperialistic nature of the empire?

- JC was fighting the system by himself essentially, he managed to get all the power, BUT, what were his thoughts on his mortality? The fact that if he died, then all he has done will be undone. Laws can always be erased, land given can always be taken etc etc...

- Did JC educate people? To me it appears true change comes about when people are educated and act through this, rather than when they are just given stuff...

- For a military man on the most wanted list, he was pretty dumb to walk into that senate hall alone at any given time... Again what was going through his mind?

To me, it appears that this man as an individual was incredible. He built himself glories galore, achieved what very few single individuals have but when it came to building something that would go beyond him as a person, in his time and beyond, something that would reverberate through, other than personal glory, to me it appears he fell flat on his face. I don't know maybe I am being judgmental and underestimating the actual time he was living in. For example with the Gauls, why did the war happen to begin with? Is it because Rome was busy expanding into their territory or was it simply because they, the gauls were savages? To me, it appears this picture is somewhat skewed as JC went in pretty much as an agent of the enemy so why would they care to listen to what he had to say??? It should have been, "get the hell out of our lands and just let us be" type scenario...

Anyways, what I am trying to say is, this person was clearly NOT the perfect man, the perfect example of a human being. To me he made errors, big errors, didn't think of certain things and maybe was a bit too obsessed with personal glory at least from what we hear about him. He was accumulating glory left right and center, the focus is on him, what about his work? what about the survival of his work? what about getting stuff done and getting them to stick and not erode away at your death??? One man can only do so much but he was a man who had absolute power at some point. He could have amassed a whole army of revolutionaries rather than just go it alone. The guys on the other side of the table had it all, the army and generational influence that survives the life span of any single person. That is why they are still winning.

If Laura's thesis of the Stoic beliefs on cosmic 'payback' is correct then he did pretty much all he could while alive, but for some reason 'turned the other cheek' a few times too many and on the wrong senatorial cheeks. Some things, people etc can be 'forgiven' but not forgotten and not allowed to continue playing the game with you, lest they 'finish the job' the next time. I don't enough of the situation to comment on that, but Kennedy had a similar problem here in the USA. He didn't seem to understand what he was up against when he turned to confront the CIA and crew. Like Caesar's move in Gaul, which was goaded and asked for, as they were going after each other and when you befriend one, you make an enemy of their enemy and then that expands like dominoes across the land; Caesar wasn't known for dallying with opponents in Gaul, so why in Rome with the Senate? The Caesar readers will have to answer that one for you, as it seemed he was trying to do a 'Gorbachev' which was to change from within without changing the system itself very much, but taking baby steps until perhaps becoming an adult and larger moves could be made. He played the game as setup in the culture of his time, perhaps asking for more wasn't in keeping with his innate desires for change? Dictator for life might have been pushing the hands of his enemies a little too much, but then that was the game in play already, so perhaps he just didn't think they would do it as they did? Isn't it said he knew of their plans and had previously stopped a few attempts? That's asking for trouble. Maybe that's the pun on 'turn the other cheek'? Be meek and die? That seed of tyranny has always been with us here in 'Purgatory', so it cannot be avoided, but rather drawn out into the light of day so all can see it and make a choice.

ID, hey thanks for taking notice and responding (as before in other instances like this).

As I just posted below to JayMark, what we have here is an unstable individual using several different SoTT accounts in an attempt to get some attention, disrupt communications, deflect the focus from topics at hand, etc (in other words, whether a paid shill or not, this entity is not here for beneficial group-oriented purposes)...

Didn't want to feed them, just wanted to make a point that this strange unsubstantiated comment seemed more like that from a jilted "lover" than from any objective point of view; completely sexing the situation up and projecting that sexuality (of lusting) onto yourself.

I'm doing fine, just had a strange accident on Thurs where a cop from Cape Town T-boned me completely through a stop street when I'm on the main thoroughfare, requiring a tow and where her engine was in pieces... no damages to anyone. All her cop buddies from the Claremont district of where it happens are having fat chats with her and laughing, and the arriving accident scene photographer opens HER boot to get to the equipment necessary (cameras, etc) so she must be the forensics from Cape Town proper. Got her work number so have now confirmed it is so. And my dads cars handbreak broke literally yesterday, and my car is still being repaired of engine failure from a month ago, so that's all weird. Sorry for the long story :P But that's it in a nutshell.

What YOU are doing is as plain as day: YOU are flirting with others in here! You must have had some real damage done to you in a BIG way to seriously think theodocius (and by the way, his name is NOT 'TDucky' - it is 'theodocius') is the least bit interested in you or flirting. If anything, he is concerned that you are attempting to co-opt and/or vector others' learning and overall free-will.

If you are going to give out silly, flirtatious nicknames, which is a big red flag for a serious affliction called projection! I find it really odd that you actually think theodocius is interested in you and is flirting with you in some way! You are projecting onto theodocius what you yourself are doing, which is FLIRTING with others!

Your comment postings do nothing but seem to bolster others' ego and self-importance, not to mention flirt with others, which is really sad.This is somewhat of a telling sign that you are not here to seriously learn about what is going on in the world around us all: and then share this knowledge out for the benefit of others.

This is NOT a dating site, a platform commonly used by players using manipulation strategies and exercising drama and/or projection traps in attempts to ensnare others!

In my opinion, you are showing some dangerous signs of needing some professional help to address some deeply ignored and/or buried issues.

Jesus didn't have a last name. The designation of "Christ" was bestowed upon him by the early church after a log battle with the Gnostics who held that 'Christ' can NEVER be human and only EVER be spirit. So his name is not Jesus Christ, it's simply Jesus.

As to whether he existed, we have to point out that Flavius Josephus does not even mention him. The one line which many Christians point to has been long proven to be a 4th century forgery by Eusebius. Other 'evidences' bandied about by christians are dubius at best, forgeries at worst. But NONE mention a "JESUS". What he allegedly taught is not original. The Golden Rule was given us by Confucius some 500 years previously. The four 'gospels' apparently can't keep their stories straight and contradict each other outright at many places, although in other places they are copied word for word. Then there's Paul - who wasn't even there, but had a 'vision'. And this is what the present day church relies on heavily as its foundation. The christian church is light on historicity and heavy on myth symbolism. Another inconvenient truth is that Nazareth didn't exist until at least the third century, so there goes the "Jesus of Nazareth" title. But a cult called the Nazarene's did exist in the 1st century - and the teachings of Jesus do fit into that cult. So it's possible that he was a member. Also the original gospels were in Greek so the translation of Nazarene was bastardized into Nazareth. Suffice it to say that the only thing original to the christian religion is alleged founder.

One cannot argue the veracity of the Bible by using the Bible and outside source material is slim to none so we have to assume the Jesus story is a remake and an embellishment of something pre-existing. But to me, the similarities to Caesar are far from convincing given the Osirian myth and the Buddha myth which mirror even more exactly the story of Jesus. Symbolism is what it's all about. And the ancient Indians and Egyptians
were masters at symbolism. More so than the Romans.

All that said, there is a tomb in Srinigar Kashmir which purports to be the tomb of Jesus. One Jus Asaf (Issa), who the locals revere as a great prophet, teacher and healer. The keeper of the tomb traces his own lineage back over 35 generations to the man himself - Someone from the 1st century who came out of the middle east and taught a gospel similar to that of Jesus. Someone who had 'injuries'. He traveled there with his mother Mary who died near Kashmir. He was always at odds with the priesthood wherever he went. He traveled thru Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and settled in Kashmir. The gospel of Thomas even talks about Jesus in India.

All this puts us at the uncomfortable admission that 'someone' was teaching 'something' radical in the 1st century; something that put the mainstream religious hierarchy in a frenzy. It also puts us at the uncomfortable admission that 'if' this person is the Jesus glorified in the bible, that he didn't die on a cross in Palestine, but survived, escaped and lived to a ripe old age of over 100 years; casting to ruin the 'resurrection and ascension' myth of mainstream Christianity.
[Link]
I'm not convinced Jesus is Caesar. I say symbolically, he's Horus! Historically, he's a well-trained shaman. But considering there were 16 crucified savior 'god-men' in the history of religion, you have plenty to choose from. Odonis, Bacchus, Osiris, Horus...... Take your pick.

Wherever he came from, wherever he ended up, whether myth of history, I do believe that if he were here today, his most important message to us would be, "That's NOT what I said!"

Good point as wasn't it said that this Jesus dude had 2 laws? and that was the new testament? 1) The Law of One and 2) the Golden Rule, which makes understanding #1 easier, for then to practice the golden rule is to help others as you help yourself. Simple, no? Otherwise, you get into the message and messenger problem, and that always says to pay attention to the message, not the messenger, though knowing the messenger is important in evaluating the message. This gets into the usual archetypes and as J Campbell called it the Hero of a 1000 Faces... or something like that.

Will you discipline these ill-behaved kids? I thought this website was a free place to comment, ... or is there a `may-i-speak` committee that each written exchange must need to take a spin through?? what is with not stopping the personal attacks directed at me by such a few.

I do think that's a ground shaking discovery. Literally. To think that there are so many people in the world who stand on this shaky ground of the institutionalized religions, believing lies basically, it's exasperating. Hopefully, some of the people will open their eyes. I didn't have a chance to read most of the literature related to this topic, but from reading materials on Francesco Carotta's website, and after viewing videos linked above, and listening to SOTT talk radio shows on the subject, I'm convinced that it was the life of Julius Caesar that was converted into a Jesus myth of the Bible. I certainly need to read more about, but I'm really joyful knowing that there was a real person, a person worthy to be called a real human being in the full sense of this word who devoted his life to the service to others (STO). And there are many other examples in history of people like him: JFK and Hugo Chavez, being two of them, osit. All of them really cared for people and were trying to work within the system, unless it was absolutely necessary to break the law, using their position of power, to bring about a real change, to instill a social construct that would be more fair to all.

''maybe we need to look at ourselves in the mirror before pointing fingers and calling names! Narrow-minded people always find something or someone to bitch at, its just so worthless, boring and pitiful; its like, cant we just grow up a bit??''

Speaking about bitching, I find you to be very good at it. Perhaps you should follow your own advise and look at yourself in a mirror?

What we have here is an unstable individual using several different SoTT accounts in an attempt to get some attention, disrupt communications, deflect the focus from topics at hand, etc (in other words, whether a paid shill or not, this entity is not here for beneficial group-oriented purposes)...

I always thought the significance of Jesus was as an archetype and blueprint for human ascension.

If there are similarities between Caesar and Jesus that doesn't prove to me that they are the same person. It could be just a synchronicity, or reflection of the fractal nature of history and reality. I must admit I find the bullet points 100% unimpressive and inconvincing. I'll reserve my conclusions and give the radio show a listen though.

(btw I hope no one confuses the user "fortune" and with me. What's with the comments sections these days? It's downright mindless. But I suppose it would be nothing new if someone is trying to sabotage this place....)

ya ya jaymarc, i knew you had some past beef to fry. do like the snake, shed the past which no longer serves. btw, if you`re on a river that you don`t know, don`t jump off the boat halfway into the trip; it won`t witness benefits of your intelligence, if you get my draft.

tducky, will you ever get bored with your ego-self, tell us? you could probably do well with a babysitter, now stop writing to me or `bout me, you show a very sad picture of yourself.... really not enlightened, (you feed on much approval from strangers).

I believe that Jesus is a blueprint as dionfortune points out. The entire stories are symbolic to help humans with their ascension. Evolution takes times for the human species and this is how it is happening, plus we are not very evolved yet, as we can clearly witness in our daily lives. For every experience there is a reason.

Musouka, yours was an interesting read.

Amerikagulag very interesting read as well. I agree with Horus, and the very well trained shaman :) I feel Jesus would say "That's NOT what I said!" but "Look at what I did/do; now how about you?"

fortune wrote, "I feel Jesus would say "That's NOT what I said!" but "Look at what I did/do; now how about you?"

I disagree. I think that the whole point of the Bible was to draw people's attention away from what "Jesus" said and focus more on what he, allegedly, did. And much of what the Bible claims he did is pretty hard to swallow, what with the walking on water, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, etc. All of this was written to turn him into a god-figure instead of the man that he was, which is simply manipulation of the masses'.

I don't think he would say either of those two things you wrote. If he were alive he would simply say more of what he was saying at the time, without giving a tinker's cuss about those who misrepresented him. I think he would be above all that, and simply continue sharing his message with those who wanted to learn it.

I also find it interesting that you, of all people, would try to influence people here to do the same as the manipulative Bible - focus on what he did instead of what he said. It kind of fits in with what people here keep accusing you of doing - trolling.

Jesus was the name given to the fictional character created by the authors of the Bible. The man who was the source of the teachings that eventually led to the society of the Cathars, a society completely obliterated by the Romans due to the threat it posed to their empire and their so-called religion, was not named Jesus.

But that is the only thing you address from my post? How telling, and predictable. I should take my own advice and ignore your posts entirely. I don't even understand the kitkat comment, and I'm glad of that.

Why is it so difficult to believe that a man who lived 2000 years ago sought to bring about socio political change and attempt bring about common justice and reform to the "common people", just like you and me.... if you may have forgotten........think about it, in all the history books he has been demonized.

No one person here commenting is from the "elect few". The ones that have thrust our idea of justice, how we should live our lives and how we interact with others. Mind programming A La 2000 YAGO

This has all been written down in a book that is of questionable origin, and also questionable authors for centuries, so called biblical scholars do the round robin dance in an attempt to try and prove validity, this is mere ego stroking.

The real people in our reality that have sought to bring about real social and political change, were aware of the suffering of "common people".....just like you and me were assassinated or died in suspicious circumstances, any reader of the SOTT page on a daily basis will be aware of some of the people recently and over the past decades........just look at the SOTT focus articles.

If you want to dig into history of the last century how about JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King and many more, of course there have been attempts to discredit who they were and what they passionately believed in..........Life, common justice and equity for everyone regardless of so called race colour or creed.

That is what Julius Caesar wanted, also JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King

Instead people want to cling wishful thinking and the belief of some omnipotent supernatural being that can walk on water, feed the 5000 with a few loaves and fishes and raise himself from the dead.

Has this happened in your life time............in mine never.

I will not answer to posts. You make what you will of this comment, this is a free will universe. All I have to say is those with eyes to see and ears to hear........truth

I got into a comment “war” trying to rein in Sheepdove, and Lindee-lou (and yes Sairie was involved too) back in May.
The article was about “Psychopathy in Politics and Finance” and was spot on with its’ facts. But “They” (Sheepdove, and Lindee-lou) were so off subject and talking about the Romans, Jesus Christ and the Bible. So “me being me”, I had to join and began quoting scripture and pissing them off. But it was bait for a trap to prove the article’s point.
The link is here.[Link]

What is insane about all of this is, that article was about “Psychopathic Behavior” and the comments were about the Bible and all of their wild theories. Now, this article is about Christ, Caesar and Bible and their comments are about “Psychopathic Behavior”.

On youtube there is a documentary called "The Gospel of Caesar". I saw half of it so far, it's pretty interesting and I recommend it.

I think this article posted here does a bad job of giving evidence for this theory. (Perhaps on purpose? Hmmm...) "Both cross a river"... "Both have a special relationship with a woman" So what? Who doesn't? The article SHOULD mention stuff like that Magdalene is also known as Mary of "Cleopas" which sound suspiciously similar to Cleopatra. Anyway, I don't mean to nitpick on the article, I'm just sayin' for those who would dismiss the theory, take a look at the documentary or book first, because they present far superior evidence.

The crucifixion tells us that Jesus was given 'gall' before he died. It was a Roman custom to offer a narcotic to the victim to alleviated the suffering. It wasn't 'wine mixed with vinegar', it was a narcotic. Jesus took the gall and lapsed into unconsciousness. It is very telling that Joseph of Arimathea begged for the body from Pilate, that his legs were not broken, that he was taken down and placed in a tomb which Joseph of Arimathea has hewn for himself. THEN we're told they brought "aloes and myrrh" of "100 pound weight" to the tomb. This is where we get the real story!

Aloes and myrrh are not embalming agents - they are healing agents. Jews did not embalm their dead. They anointed them with oils. Crucifixion itself was not fatal. It was suffocation which killed the victim and hastened by the breaking of the legs. It took sometimes days for the victim to perish and there are examples of survivors in historical writings. Jesus was 33 years old, in the prime of line, in the best of health and 3 puncture wounds killed him in 3 hours? Not likely. The aloes and myrrh, particular to THIS CASE, were used as a giant poultice bandage to help Jesus recover. Then the "Gospel of Peter" (anathema) tells us Jesus was seen leaving the tomb supported by 'two men dressed in white'. A survival, an escape and subsequent sightings all combine to indicate that we have something a bit more than symbolism here; that what the 'church' is teaching is not actually what had occurred but actually something more 'human' going on. And that's fine. Jesus was a human afterall.

Let's say we need a bit more evidence though. We have another clue also. The controversial "Shroud of Turin".

This cloth is purported to be of 1st century origin due to the grains of pollen which are found on its surface. The many scientific examinations of it have produced equally as many contradicting results, from 12th century forgery, to a DaVinci painting. The one thing that causes it to stand apart from all other shrouds is the 'crown of thorns' and the 'side wound' which combine to support the biblical passion story. But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's valid - that it's a 1st century burial cloth. What it tells us is that it wrapped the body of a man who was NOT DEAD. There are over 20 wounds on the body that 'continued to bleed after the body was wrapped'. Corpses don't bleed. The side wound in particular bled profusely and even rand down and puddled around the back. If it's not authentic, it tells us a story of a living human inside and if it IS authentic it tells us the same thing. I hope it is authentic because it will bring divinity down to a human state where it originated from and where Jesus tells us is dwells.

So, similarities between Caesar and Jesus may abound, they also abound in comparison to other super heroes. Caesar may have longed for the equality and compassion and shrived to obtain it. But actual evidence tells us someone else also lived and worked for the same spiritual goals in Palestine. Both may have been shunned by the establishment and both may have been assassinated, but one was in Rome, the other in Palestine. One of them survived the attempt and left the region. Notwithstanding the embellishments of the church and their 'gospels', we have a very human story.

And as Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas, 'The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you, though men do not see it." Perhaps this is what Caesar wanted to say.

I.D., thanks for your assistance (as before :-). Yep, I understand the feeding aspect of it. I agree and so just wanted to once again take aim, call this entity out, and point out its activity as a heads up to others.

Appropriately enough, on "The Masters of Deception" article comment thread, although I caught it using another account (loria, responded for fortune [Link], thus signalling ownership of the fortune comment), it creeped back in again recently on another couple of articles and then, again, on this excellent article on Carotta's highly significant material/contribution.

We received more-than-expected divergent activity from this that ended up making quite a bit noise on the thread, but look at how the group came together to help (thank you to others, too: Jaymark, Mariama, mocachapeau, sairie, and anyone else assisting whom I may have missed).

Then, Joe and the Editors helped in closing the lid yesterday [Link](Thanks, Joe, Niall, and Editors team :-)

I.D., am certainly concerned regarding your recent accident. Definitely hope you're okay and that your car issues improve quickly (please stay extra vigilant, as there seems to be a definite correlation between being on-track, doing the Work, and receiving more attention from entropists). Just remember, as you probably know, attack typically comes through lines of least resistance with respect to the the entities concerned, often working through those closest to us in our innermost circles...

It wouldn't be unusual for the compilers of the books of the Bible to 'fill in the blanks' by borrowing parts of Caesar's life story, for whatever reasons they had at the time. Poetic Licesnse, enhancement, doctrinization of text fragments to support a new religion, etc.
All this means is that 2,000 years later we really don't know what was borrowed from whom and how much.

“Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, and their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter and Andrew on the other.”

Caesar came with his army and turned republic into an empire. Jesus came along and was baptized.

“Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion.”

Caesar killing and slaying in the Gaelic Wars, subduing Britain, and Egypt at great cost of life, he came into Rome with his army and did whet we would call a coup today. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey with 12 followers.

“Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship with one particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.”

Caesar had sex with any woman he chose (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Sex-Life-of-Julius-Gaius-Caesar-and-Powerful-Libido-Enhancers-From-History&id=123823), while Jesus had he feet washed by Magdalene.

“Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus with Nicodemus of Bethany.”

It was with Nicomedes of Bithynia that Caesar had his first homosexual experience, of which his enemies would remind him repeatedly later in his career. Sent by his commander to the kingdom of Bithynia to take charge of a naval squadron, he dallied with king Nicomedes long enough that their liaison became scandalous, especially when he found an excuse to return to Bithynia soon after completing his mission. (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/caesar_j.html)

Nicodemus visits Jesus one night to discuss his teachings with him “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” The Bible tells us little about Nicodemus — good or bad.
He’s only mentioned three times in the Gospel of John. There’s the nocturnal meeting with Jesus, later, Nicodemus reminds the Pharisees that under Jewish law, Jesus should be granted a hearing before he’s condemned. Finally, Nicodemus brings ointments to assist in Jesus’ burial. How this guy know that he was from Bethany is beyond me.

I am going to stop this point by point comparative now, as all the rest are just as outlandish as these were. There is no way on God's green earth the life of Jesus is based upon Caesar. This guy is just a fruitcake.

Good points, just to double check some of your claims, I did some basic google searches;

- So far google has confirmed that he did invade Britain.... twice.
- Regarding his sex life, wikipedia says

[Link]
" Julius Caesar was accused of bringing the notoriety of infamia upon himself, both when he was about 19, for taking the passive role in an affair with King Nicomedes of Bithynia, and later for many adulterous affairs with women."

I don't know how accurate this is but:

[Link]
"We learn from Suetonius that Caesar was fond of long private sessions of sex in the heated room (a sort of Roman sauna). There we learned he would order young girls to perform fellacio (a sexual practice frowned upon in Roman custom) and a great position they called "the way of the cat"."

The above could be propaganda though.

Anyways, I think there is enough to conclude he had an active sex life. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Link]
"It was during his third marriage, that he was engaged in the most famous of his love affairs, with the then queen of Egypt, Cleopatra. She was the give birth to his son, Caesareon, who later became Pharoah.
Other lovers include Brutus' mother, Servilia Caepionis and, Euno` - queen of Mauretania."

The last website casts doubt on his homosexuality. Apparently, despite being accused of this, he denied it under oath.

The Wikipedia page linked earlier states that he might have had sexual relations with Nicodemus.

Additionally,

[Link]
"Julius Caesar was taunted all his life with charges of having been the lover of King Nicomedes of Bithynia."

However, the above could be a lie but again, would he have admitted it if it were true?

So anyways, you bring forward good points.

But does this mean that the christ figure was not based on Julius? I don't know... Just because he wasn't perfect doesn't mean some legend couldn't have built up around him that grew into what we call christianity.

Personally, my view, despite the ground breaking discovery that has just occurred, I think maybe SOTT jumped the gun a bit too quick on this one. Just a nagging thought I have, like maybe there is something more, major missing.

What mainly gets me is that all credible channeled material attest to a christ sort of figure and I am not sure Julius Caesar is this figure. The last point is just my opinion btw. It could be possible that there is something shrouding another thing here. And anyways there is that thing which says,

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

All I am saying is, let us not jump to conclusions. Who the hell knows what is happening here, really.. all we have to go on is what other people write about what other people are saying about god knows what.. Back to thy bench to wait for the next ground breaking discovery...

Lastly,

Wouldn't the vatican be all over this like a plague of locusts? Think about it... Anything that would go anywhere to quashing there millenia worth of influence would be dealt with in the most severe no nonsense way possible.. Just saying...